Portland Sash & Door Co. v. Parker

• Decision Date: 12 March 1912
• Citation: 61 Or. 203,121 P. 1134
• Parties: PORTLAND SASH & DOOR CO. v. PARKER.
• Court: Oregon Supreme Court

121 P. 1134

61 Or. 203

PORTLAND SASH & DOOR CO. v. PARKER.

Supreme Court of Oregon

March 12, 1912

Appeal from Circuit Court, Multnomah County; Robert G. Morrow Judge.

Action by the Portland Sash & Door Company against K.E. Parker.

From a judgment for defendant, plaintiff appeals. Reversed, and judgment entered for plaintiff.

A.T Lewis, for appellant.

J.F Boothe (Wilbur & Spencer and Boothe & Richardson, on the brief), for respondent.

BURNETT J.

This is a suit to foreclose a materialman's lien for materials furnished for and used by the defendant in the reconstruction of her dwelling house. It is alleged by the plaintiff that the materials were of the reasonable value of $432.45, of which defendant has paid $150, leaving a balance of $282.45 for which amount, with $75 as attorney's fee, the plaintiff asks the court to decree foreclosure. The answer admits the delivery of materials and the payment of $150, but traverses the allegations of their value. There is affirmative matter in the answer indicating that the doors and some of the lumber said to be furnished by plaintiff were defective, and warped and shrunk after they were set in place in the building. The defendant also counterclaims for damages in the sum of $1,000. The new matter of the answer is denied by the reply. As mortgagee, Bessie M. Teal was made defendant; but, as that claim was paid pendente lite, it was agreed by plaintiff and the defendant Parker that this suit should be considered settled as to the mortgagee. Hence no further notice of that defendant is necessary. The circuit court dismissed the suit as between the plaintiff and defendant Parker, without costs or disbursements to either party, and the plaintiff appeals. The question involved is purely one of fact, and, passing some questions about the sufficiency of the answer, we are of the opinion, after a careful perusal of the record, that the preponderance of the testimony is in favor of the proposition that the plaintiff delivered the material in amount and quality substantially as agreed upon by the parties and as alleged in the complaint that at the time of its delivery it was in good order, and that the defects complained of are due to conditions subsequent for which the plaintiff is not responsible. It was agreed at the trial in the circuit court that the judge there should fix the attorney's fee after hearing the case, without any testimony directly on the...